Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 25 of 1982, decided on 24th March, 1982.

(On appeal from the order dated 27‑10‑1981 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No. 1369/13 of 1981 and subsequent order dated 17‑I1‑1981 passed in Review Application No. 39/C of 1981).

Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑

‑‑‑.‑ S. 5‑Condonation of delay‑Decree passed on 11‑7‑1977, copy applied for and petitioner given chit showing prospective date of delivery on 2‑8‑1977, copy obtained on 18‑9‑1977 and appeal filed on 29‑9‑1977‑Petitioner obtaining copy on 18‑9‑1977 but offering no plausible explanation for filing appeal on 29‑9‑1977 after 11 days and not accounting for delay of each day, appeal, held, rightly dismissed as time‑barred.

Sh. Zahurul Haq, Advocate. Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 24th March, 1982.

‑The question raised in this petition for grant to leave is whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the District,., Court against the decree of dismissal of his suit was not time‑barred. : The appellate Court of the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, had dismissed the appeal holding the same to be time‑barred. The petitioner took the matter to the High Court in Civil Revision No. 1369/13 of 1981 and when the same failed, he moved a review application but that too was dismiss ed on 17‑11‑1981.

2. The decree dismissing the petitioner's suit had been passed on 11‑7‑1977. He had applied for its copy and had been given a chit show ing the prospective date of delivery of the copy as 2‑8‑1977. However, h obtained copy on 18‑9‑1977 and filed the appeal on 29‑9‑1977. For the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, he had also moved an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner did visit the Copying Office 94 2‑8‑1977 and he had been asked to make up deficiency in court‑free which he had complied with, but as copy bad not been delivered to him, he had gone away and could not come again until 18‑9‑1977 on account of his illness. It is further submitted that during the month of August the Courts were closed for vacations and if the time taken in obtaining the copy and the period of the vacation of Court were excluded, the appeal was within time. We, however, find that the petitioner had obtained the copy on 18‑9‑1977 but he had offered no plausible explanation for filing the appeal 29‑9‑1977 which was after 11 days. Since time for filing the appeal had already run out, he was to account for the delay of each and every day. The Courts below have found that he had no sufficient cause for such delay. There is, therefore, no valid ground for interference. The petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.